Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday September 12, 2013 @06:07PM
from the tell-us-everything dept.

McGruber writes "During Wednesday's TechCrunch Disrupt conference, Marissa Meyer was asked what would happen if Yahoo simply declined to cooperate with the NSA. She replied 'Releasing classified information is treason. It generally lands you incarcerated.' Meyer also revealed that the 2007 lawsuit against the Patriot Act had been filed by Yahoo: 'I'm proud to be part of an organization that from the very beginning in 2007, with the NSA and FISA and PRISM, has been skeptical and has scrutinized those requests. In 2007 Yahoo filed a lawsuit against the new Patriot Act, parts of PRISM and FISA, we were the key plaintiff. A lot of people have wondered about that case and who it was. It was us ... we lost. The thing is, we lost and if you don't comply it's treason.'"

Treason is the act of sabotage, destruction, sedition, and suchlike. Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

Which is way Assange's case is so hilarious. The US is blaming a foreigner for breaking US laws and trying to get him extradited. And the weirdest part is that the breaking the law was just acting like a newspaper.

Don't we have to have a declared war to actually have a true charge of treason?

Google is your friend [cornell.edu] (but they're scared shitless of the government, too, just like this lady is)

Article III Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Sadly, the "giving them aid or comfort" part has been expanded to include virtually anything. Do you oppose NSA spying? Well, by doing so you "give aid and comfort" to terrorists since your opposition might disrupt something that could have thwarted the terrorists' plans. If you don't get in line like a good little patriot and keep your mouth quiet, you're a traitor.

The problem here is that she may be totally right, under the interpretation of secret courts whose rulings we don't know. If she has been told in a secret court ruling that failure to comply with these requests constitutes treason (no matter how indefensible that ruling may be), then she is correct in asserting that such is the case. What is even worse is that she could not even tell us if that was the case.

Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society: they remove the oversight of the populace in regulating the judicial process, and inevitably lead to abuse. A law you must obey but cannot be told the expectations of can be nothing but a tool of tyranny.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I'm sure that she's right that it's comply or go to jail, but it's not treason.

We're talking about the federal government here. It no longer has to abide by this "Constitution you speak of, and if you invoke it in a court case, the feds can declare your argument "frivolous" and ignore it.

She just has to blast it on millions of computer screens. They won't be able to ignore the political outrage from the public over trying to jail a woman with a baby that is fighting government tyranny. Secret agencies and courts tend to fade away from scrutiny by the general public.

PS
I keep getting the feeling that hollywood was trying to tell us about this for decades but we weren't listening because we thought it was entertainment and wouldn't believe it would happen to us. The movies of the last few decades sure described a lot of the current issues. Either that or hollywood was trying to program us to be insensitive to the changes.

Either way, you've got the best P.S. I've seen in a long while. Sci-fi writers had some of this long before Hollywood, but who takes that seriously? Other than some of us, maybe.

Perhaps it doesn't matter; I've the scary thought that even if the bulk of the populace got angry and demanded an end to such practice that it would make no difference to outcome.

It used to be that legislators tended to behave well in being responsive to their constituents in order to get the votes to get re-elected; now I suspect they have more fear of having the past five or ten years of their emails and phone calls outed than they fear having to return to private life to try to make an honest living.

The US has no equivalent of the UK's "Official Secrets Act". By definition, one cannot unlawfully disclose classified information unless one has been "indoctrinated" (i.e. granted a security clearance). A necessary part of that process is the signing of a non-disclosure agreement whereby one agrees to be held criminally liable for unauthorized disclosure. Absent such an NDA and security indocrination, the possession and/or dissemination of classified information is perfectly legal. Note how all legal scruti

I think she believes that she, or her employees might face jail time if they refused to comply with a court order. At the very least there would be significant financial penalties for her company resulting in the loss of many jobs.

I also have no doubt that "Treason" was the word used by the people who came to see her or her predecessor(she hasn't actually been in the role that long).

I would also like to take this time to state that I am sick and god damned tired of sexist trolls like yourself using terms like "bimbo" because you disagree with what someone has said. Grow the fuck up.

She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

Right now at this time it appears that the best interests are served by complying.

If you want corporations to fight, buy shares - get a group together to buy more shares, buy up all of the companies that run the infrastructure of the country, then use them to fight a proxy war with the current federal government.

Vote with your wallets. Vote with organization. Just hope that the new masters (whomever ends up with controlling interest) are better than what we have now.

She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.

And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens.A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample.Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.

Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.

Now, in this particular case, Ms Mayer seems to indicate that she is opposed to the orders and - through her organization - has fought these orders in court. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against her and Yahoo decided to obey the court orders. And despite her poor choice of words regarding the reasoning for her actions following the court's decision (e.g., "treason"), I'd even be willing to believe that she - and Yahoo - will continue to "fight the good fight", for whatever reason. So it seems that this is not just a case of protecting Yahoo shareholders and that's a good thing..

But the idea that the sole responsibility CEOs have is to their corporate masters needs to die.

Vote with your wallets. Vote with organization. Just hope that the new masters (whomever ends up with controlling interest) are better than what we have now.

We're talking about fairly basic violations of the US Constitution here. If your solution is to "vote with your wallets" then everything is lost, because that means 1) you think basic guarantees are up for a vote, and 2) you've given up on the idea that one person is one vote. That means you're not *really* talking about voting any more; you're talking about *buying back* freedoms that we're supposed to be guaranteed. But when 1%-2% of people in the US own the majority of the wealth, you can't "vote with yo

Not. There isn't a difference. You don't call someone a bimbo for saying or doing something stupid; you call them a bimbo when you have written them off as a stupid person. Furthermore, you don't use bimbo when referring to a stupid male, you use it when referring to a stupid female. And you use it to particularly address the fact that a stupid person is a woman. It is a label that has a legacy of having been used to deride and reduce women in the workplace for decades. Maybe you don't take offense to it, but that's on you. Civilized people do, and surely, there are words that offend you.

How can you not understand that bimbo is offensive in any context that has it applied to a woman?

You are astonishingly ignorant if you don't know why you are so very wrong to call a successful woman like Marissa Meyer a bimbo.This ignorance is a sign of immaturity, hence that is why you are told to "grow up".

I'll explain it for you.When someone says something that you think is wrong, then you say "That is wrong and this is why it is wrong."You can even say that the statement is "stupid" when it is made in disregard of reason and facts. Merely being wrong about something when there is some supporting evidence is not "stupid".If she made a number of un-reasoning and contra-factual statements (or actions) in varying contexts, then you could state that she is stupid.

You used this phrase: "if she believes..., then she's a dumbass bimbo". You used the word "bimbo" as a personal attack against a person, and "bimbo" falls into a group of pejoratives that are used as attacks against classes of people who are discriminated against in the same fashion that racial epithets are used.One thing that I am very certain of is that Marissa Meyer is neither vacuous nor stupid. Also. I suspect it's most unlikely that she's overly interested in her sex appeal, boys, and clothing which are among the connotations of bimbo.She made one statement that is probably wrong. However, it is quite possible that the government attorneys involved in the court case used the word treason regarding Yahoo's non-compliance with the various acts mentioned. I don't know; I wasn't there so I give her the benefit of the doubt. Were you there?The word "bimbo" simply" does not apply to her, so the only reason I can imagine someone would call her a bimbo is to demean her status as a person using an attack based on her gender.

Now, as for this: "Too many people take too much god damn offense from words".There is a reason why people take offense against words. It is because so much offense has been done using words.

I'm speaking as an old person who had a grandmother who could not legally vote when she was a young woman, whose mother was alive in a time when women were not allowed to purchase property in their own name without a husband's signature, when the only women allowed into law or medical school were exceptions granted to some influential person's daughter. The only jobs open to women were teaching and secretary unless dad owned the company.I have a wife with a sky-high IQ that could not attend the college of her choice because almost no science/technical schools accepted women at that time. And I'm well aware of the struggles my daughter had as a physics major from professors who refused to acknowledge she even existed.

I know, I'm an old hippie going whine whine fuss moan about the bad old days way back when. But here's my point:Those days are not over, and they're not over because of immature assholes like you.Shut the fuck up until you have grown up.

Sigh.. nope. Calling someone a bimbo is still dismissing their POV by basically saying her gender is somehow relevant to her lack of intelligence. Would you say a guy who you disagreed with is a "dudebro" or a "himbo?" So why does it somehow become a legitimate thing to say to women?

Also... for the love of god, freedom of speech applies to government censorship, individuals can and will tell you your choice of words are stupid and ask that you change them.

Except that there is no common law precedent for doing so (AFAIK), and to make that stretch would be to take a huge gamble as to what happens under appeal.

Luckily, you don't have to worry about common law precedent and appeals so much in trials held in a secret court.

Aid and Comfort is often referred to as "harboring a fugitive" -- which, if Yahoo Mail has evidence of where someone is hiding or what they are up to, and Yahoo has the means to ferret that out, but doesn't provide the information to the government when they ask for it with a warrant, could be considered treason. From there to providing any information to the government because they've requested it, and being in contempt of a secret court if you refuse to do so or talk about it, is the slippery slope we've slid down.

That "bimbo" as you put it with whatever infinite wisdom and technical expertise and responsibility you think you have, was talking pragmatically about the consequences Yahoo faces from the government's perspective. She wasn't speaking philosophically or even metaphorically. She probably knows just a little more about the issue than you do being that her company did fight it and lost. She probably is aware of what threats the NSA has made to Yahoo. So how about you give her some slack, or just show a bit of

Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.

Warrants are pretty much always requested in a confidential setting. Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear. The only thing that is different here is that the recipients of the warrant can't tell people they received it. Since they aren't the suspects, letting them inform other people that there is an investigation going on about them would interfere with what is a highly sensitive investigation

The US law is clear 'pretty much always requested" does not work well in any domestic US legal setting. The defendants legal team (security cleared) still gets to see evidence. They still get to ask questions. Lawyers in the US dont like terms like "apparently legal and proper"
"Congress passed the laws authorizing" does not undo, loop around, remove or weaken any constitutional rights.

The warrants shouldn't be public. No warrants should actually be public. That's a horrendous breach of the privacy of the subject of the warrant. Imagine you get searched for kiddie porn and they don't find anything, releasing that warrant to the public would damage you horribly.

The subject should have a right to see the warrant and the evidence used to issue it. We should know how many warrants are being filed, but never what they're actually for.

Indeed, it's exceedingly difficult to get convicted of treason in the US. The list of people who have been could fit on a postcard [wikipedia.org] and mostly involves things like defecting to the Waffen SS during WWII and similar wartime indiscretions.

and according the constitution they shouldn't be doing blanket spying in the first place, so what exactly is your point?

they'll call it treason if they want to. they can call it aiding the (potential, mind you) enemy if they want to. and they includes the court they choose and their actions are backed up by the united states military so what exactly would you do? the only option is to close up shop or give in.

Giving aid to the enemy would be considered treason, and what she says at the end of the article is "if you don't comply it's treason." If the target of the inquiry is considered an enemy, as they may in a terrorist investigation, it seems to me not handing over the requested information could be seen as treason. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was spelled out in the court case she's referring to. There's really nothing outrageous about the headline, the real problem is the ease with which agencies can force a company to hand over the information. Personally, I don't take issue with them considering it treason if they're requesting information on a dangerous enemy, I just think it's bull that they can use this on just about anyone with no real oversight, in a manner thought unconstitutional by the court in charge of it.

Sorry bub, I am not a slave. I can ask me for stuff I have got with a warrant but fuck you if think you can force me to get stuff. There is a huge difference between the two. A warrant provide the right to search it does not provide the right to enslave the target of the warrant and force them to lie, deceive, spy and back stab on their behalf. This is the real problem with the cowardly US, it's citizens fail to stand up for their rights. Under the US constitution it is set out that only those being punish

I hereby, as a prior serviceman who swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, pledge my rifle if Mr. Zuckerberg or Ms. Mayer, CEOs of Facebook and Yahoo respectively, come out with the truth of the extent of violation by the government against the privacy of the citizens of the United States of America. And herby pledge my rifle to the their defense, the defense of the Constitution and freedom of speech if either is arrested, charged and sentenced for treason in regards to the matter of the NSA's unconstitutional espionage on U.S. citizens. This is a reminder that the government is to serve the People, not the other way around.

***

U.S. CONSTITUTION : AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION : ARTICLE IV"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Government agencies not specifically sent this message that reading this, please

The problem there is that the courts are typically deferential to the other branches on issues of national security. Basically they're afraid that if they say no and something happens that they'll be responsible.

The only reason why the high court started saying no to Bush was that Bush started acting like the court didn't have authority over anything he was doing. Had he kept his ego in check, the SCrOTUmS decisions would likely have continued in his favor.

There is a legal proverb that states, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Have you put yourself on that path? Do you understand the domains criminal law, national security law, and Constitutional law, and their interplay? I see you quote only one amendment, but say nothing about an entire relevant article of the Constitution, nor about relevant court cases that are precedent for the law when it is an issue in the courts. You are on dangerous ground, my friend, dangerous ground. Think

No, we're not acting as if we had no clue. We knew a lot of this was going on. Perhaps not to the fullest extent. But, what we did not have was any legal evidence. Thanks to Snowden, we do. And I think a reason that a lot of folks like Yahoo's CEO and Mark Zuck-- are now talking. Is because it is an out in the open and officially acknowledged matter. And they're trying to drop the hints that it is far worse than the American people realize.

This spin on this article is amazing. What happens if you decline cooperation is classified information. That doesn't mean that declining to cooperate leads to a treason charge, just that whatever happens if you decline, is classified information. Releasing classified information is a treason charge, but that's a separate issue altogether.

It's like asking "what do you mean by sex?" and yet... how is what Snowden did treason? All he has done is reveal the fact that the three branches of our government have basically said "we have the right to spy on you be cause we say so. and if you reveal the fact that we are violating your rights under the constitution they pull the magic "States Secrets" bunny out of the hat that waves its magic wand and gags those that would speak because it is treason... Um... How's that again? Where does it say that "State Secrets" trumps the constitution?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

That's treason. Releasing classified information isn't treason per se unless it meets one of the Constitutional criteria laid out above.

So protecting foreign combatants by intentionally masking their communications and refusing to assist the federal government in their apprehension is NOT giving them aid and/or comfort.

I'm curious...if it were drug runners laundering money through a major US bank, would you consider that assisting them in such a way that would be against the RICO act?

(note: I'm not siding with the government, or against those who would give the NSA the middle finger - let them do their own legwork, but I'm curious where you draw the line, and how straight that line is)

There is treason, there is sedition. There is free speech. One doesn't necessarily trump the other. Snowden, Manning, and others did what they felt was right, and no matter how right, they're ready to go to jail. Not the CEO of Yahoo; she's interested in staying out of jail.

That's where the reality is. You can cite the Constitution, even legal precedent, but jail is very real.

Is it a horrid era that allows the contemptous behavior of the government, en masse, against its citizens? Absolutely. But we allowed

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Remember, US is in (cyber) war against all the world (except Israel, as least it seems so for the information given to them), and probably other english speaking countries, despite that the attacked countries realize the situation or not. Helping other countries to realize that they are being unilaterally attacked by US count on their books as treason.

I just hope that the other countries realize what is the actual situation, and stop giving US in a silver plate the bullets to get shot by them.

We're approaching the end game of fascism in America. The country has had a good run but alas humans can't stop being humans and so this country will crumble under its weight like all countries before it.

I've been trying for some time to come up with reasons to disagree with what you've posted. I readily admit I'm not doing all that well. I've one hypothesis and that is that democratic states with all the freedoms such states entail will generally win out over less democratic states because freedom of speech and assembly among other fundamental rights inherently provide efficiencies that less democratic states lack. This idea doesn't necessarily apply to special cases like China today which is playing catc

... a video I was watching recently. A youtube vid of one of the story arcs of Babylon5, the Earth Civil War [youtube.com]. Something about this statement just brought this to mind. Not stating that this as serious but well it does have dark overtones.

I think it was more so, that "Hey, we will arrest you. Crash your company. And or replace you. And we'll use illicit means to make it happen. Hell, we might just bump you off if you don't comply. Either way your company will comply, whether its you or the next guy."

They don't even have to say anything: she knows her job depends on co-operating. Bottom line is that she doesn't own Yahoo, she is a servant of the shareholders - she is expected/obliged to put their interests first.

OK, she could decide to not comply, or blow the NSA's cover on the extent of spying, but if she took Yahoo into direct conflict with the Federal Government over a personal opinion I doubt she'd stick around in the job for 24 more hours before the board decided she had to go.

The only entity who's defintion of Treason matters here is the USDOJ. When they jail you, you can scream "this is unjust! what I did isn't really treason!" all you like, but you're still in jail for treason.

Google CEO Page is worth 25 billion dollars and along with Brin owns enough voting shares to completely control the company. Mayer is worth 300 million. They have resources that you and I don't: the ability to hire the best lawyers in the world and media platforms that reach the majority of the people in the US and perhaps the world.

If they had any sense of responsibility, obligation, or patriotism they could fight this thing and have a good chance of winning.